Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Chakradhari Wheels (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)517

1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 2001-02 is directed against order of CIT(A) confirming order of the AO wherein expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee under the head "Business" were disallowed.2. The facts of the case are that the company was formed with foreign collaboration on 31st Jan., 2000. The main business of the assessee was to manufacture and supply railway wheels to the Indian, Railways. The.assessee submitted return declaring loss of Rs. 26,04,110 on 21st Oct., 2001 In order to justify claim of expenditure and depreciation, the assessee vide letter dt. 30th Jan., 2004, filed before the AO, stated as under: "The assessee's main customer is Indian Railways. During the year under consideration, the assessee could not get any order, therefore, there was no sale of the wheels. All the wheels purchased are duly reflected in the details of the closing stock enclosed. It consists of stock of raw wheels as well as stock of wheels under work-in-progress." "By v...

Sr. Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society Vs. J.L. Seth and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant society floated a scheme to build flats at Greater NOIDA exclusively for senior citizens and promised to hand over possession of the flat within a period of 2 years from the date of registration. Having received an amount of Rs. 6.3 lacs from the respondent, who registered himself as its member, the appellant neither completed the construction of the flat nor handed over the possession of the same. 2. On account of non-delivery of the possession of the flat within the promised period of 2 years the appellant society has been directed to refund the money to the respondent with interest @ 18% and also to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 for inconvenience and mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. 4. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on two grounds. Firstly that as per Clause 16 of the agreement all disputes arising from the agreement shall be adjudicated within the jurisdi...

United Plastomers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed against the common order-in-appeal. Appeal No. 184 & 185 have been filed by the assessee for disputing the confirmation of service tax with penalty as detailed therein, while appeal No. ST-05 & 06 have been filed by the Revenue seeking enhancement of penalty.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. Service tax has been demanded for the disputed period from the Appellants on two counts, firstly, as Consignment Agent, and secondly, as Dealer Agent under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent. So far as liability to pay service tax for the disputed period, as consignment agent is concerned, the learned Counsel has conceded that the Appellants are liable to pay service tax being consignment agent of IPCL. Therefore, the impugned Order confirming the service tax on that count against the Appellants is upheld.3. However the liability to pay service tax as dealer agent under the category of clearing and forwarding a...

Cce Vs. K.M. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

In this appeal the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the deemed Modvat Credit to the Respondents in terms of Notification No.58/97-CE(NT) dated 30.8.97.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the records. The deemed Modvat Credit has been sought to be denied to the Respondents on the strength of the invoices issued by supplier/ manufacturer of the goods namely, M/s. Agarwal Iron & Steel Industries, M/s. Devta Steel Rolling Mills, M/s. Mahabir Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Surinder Steel Rolling Mills. So far as first two suppliers/manufacturers' invoices are concerned, the deemed Modvat Credit in respect thereof on the inputs covered thereunder, has been rightly allowed to the Respondents as they had submitted a certificate from the Range Officer showing the discharge of full duty by both the suppliers at the time of clearances of the inputs to the Respondents.3. Regarding invoices of M/s. Mahabir Steel...

Oswal Paper and Allied Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT22TriDel

1. The applicants are seeking stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 6,05,661/- on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) in their earlier case allowed their appeal on merits on the same issue. It was also stated that the unit has gone before BIFR for rehabilitation and the unit is still lying closed.2. On limitation, it was pleaded by Shri Bansal, the learned Advocate that the applicants had not received the letters sent by registered post/speed post as has been held by the Commissioner (Appeals). They had written a letter to the Joint Commissioner on 15-3-2004 and the Joint Commissioner Audit has sent them the photocopy of the Order-in-Original which was received by them on 21-5-2004 and they had filed the appeal on 9-6-2004. Thus prima facie the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the appeal as time barred is not correct. He relied on decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Pravin Mansukhlal Mehta v...

Garg and Co. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of Kraft Cheddar Cheese and filed a Bill of Entry dt. 25.3.2000. The goods were released on provisional basis to the appellants. The cheese was directly imported from M/s. Craft Wood Ltd., Australia.3. Sample taken by the revenue sent to the Chemical Examiner and Chemical Examiner vide his report dt. 4.5.2000 find that the samples of Kraft Cheddar Cheese were not conformity with the PFA Rules, 1955. In the report it is mentioned that the milk fat content is less than the minimum prescribed limit. It is also mentioned that batch/Logt No., month and year of manufacturing is also not mentioned on the label.Hence, sample is adulterated as well as misbranded. Dy. Commissioner of Customs wrote a letter to the appellants on 21.8.2000 to the effect that the appellants are directed to bring back the said goods at C...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bridgestone (Acc) India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in Appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Lathe Machine/welding machine/drilling machine is allowed by Commissioner (Appeals).2. The only contention of the Revenue is that the Tribunal in the case of National Steel Inds. Ltd. v. CCE Indore reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 735 held that credit in respect of Lathe Machine as capital goods is not admissible.3. The contention of the Revenue is that in respect of welding machine and drilling machine as these are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, therefore, credit is not available.4. In respect of Lighting arrester, the contention is that the Tribunal in the case of Shriram Vinyl & Chemical Inds. v. CCE held that Modvat credit as capital goods in respect of Lighting arrestor is also not available.5. The contention of the respondent is that the period in dispute is from July to Aug. '98 and during this period, the defini...

L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT85TriDel

1. This order will dispose of the above captioned two appeals directed against the common order-in-appeal. Appeal No. E/3231/03-NB(S) has been filed by the assessee vide which he has challenged the correctness of the part of the impugned order disallowing the Modvat credit on the M.S. Plates, while in the second appeal No. E/3180/03-NB(S), the Revenue has disputed the correctness of the impugned order allowing the credit to the assessee on Asbestos-Yarn- Packing and CF-Structures.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of sugar. On M.S. Plates, the Modvat credit has been disallowed on the ground that these are not covered by the definition of 'Capital Goods', but the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard cannot be sustained as these plates are being used for the maintenance of the machines and machinery parts. Therefore, in view of this, the assessee is entitled to the Modv...

Paharpur-3p Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The Appellants filed these appeals against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat Credit was disallowed on the ground that Bill of Entry was in the name of company's head office at Calcutta whereas Credit has been taken in the factory which is situated at a different place. Credit was also disallowed on the ground that the Appellants had not mentioned the sub-heading of the Tariff Heading mentioned in the declaration.2. The contention of the Appellants is that the Bill of Entry was filed in the name of head office as the Order was placed by the head office for import of machine and machinery. The contention is that the Credit was taken at the factory which is a division of the same company. The Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, where in same circumstances Credit was allowed. The appellants also contended that the goods in question are Lead Bus Bars to Chrome Tank and are parts of Gal...

Chambal Fertilizers and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None for the appellants. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeals after hearing the learned SDR.2. In both these appeals, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal rejecting their refund claims of Rs. 6,15,688/- and Rs. 4,95,785/-.3. The refund has been claimed by the appellants on the ground that above said amount was paid by them as service tax during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 when service tax was imposed on the goods' transport operators under the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(xii) & (xvii) and the said Rule was declared ultra vires by the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti , but infirmities in the said Rules pointed out by the Apex Court in the above said judgment were removed by the Central Government by passing Finance Act, 2000 and the amendment was given retrospective effect. The said amendment which re-validated the law retrospectively was also challenged, ...